Judgement of Bombay HC in the case of Bharti Airtel - CBEC Instructions

Ref: TIOL-DDT 2474 dated 13.11.2014. CBEC may be congratulated for issuing Instruction No. 17/02/2009-CX.1 (Pt), Dated: November 12, 2014 in connection with CESTAT [Larger Bench] decision in the matter of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai-III and Nagpur as reported in 2014-TIOL-1762-CESTAT-Mum-LB holding that Aluminium dross and skimmings and similar non-ferrous metal dross and skimmings which arise as a by-product in the process of manufacture of aluminium / non-ferrous metal products are manufactured goods and hence excisable w.e.f. 10.05.2008 in view of the explanation added to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act,1944.
However, why the Board is keeping mum over the implications of CESTAT’s LB decision as reported in TIOL-DDT 2453 dated 10-10-2014 under the heading “Can CESTAT extend Stay beyond 365 days - YES, holds Larger Bench”. The CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Larger Bench) vide its Interim Order No. I/E/864-884/2014-EX(DB) dated 30-09-2014 in the matter of Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi has held that extension beyond 365 days can be granted by Tribunal by speaking order showing its satisfaction that appellant/ assessee was ready and willing for disposal of appeal, and had not indulged in protractive strategies. In view of this factual position, Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX dated 01-01-2013 relating to recovery of dues in old cases should be rescinded/modified. This Circular has already lost its relevance due to changes incorporated in Finance Act (No. 2), 2014 in respect of mandatory pre-deposit.
***Pankaj Jaroli_8658

pankaj jaroli 14/11/2014